Dove: Campaign for Real Profit?

A new Dove ad is making the viral rounds, the latest in its "Campaign for Real Beauty" that has included billboard ads featuring real, unPhotoshopped women as models and the award winning Dove: Evolution ad that shows an image re-touched beyond recognition in accelerated time. The latest salvo what Slate.com has called "cheap feminism" is the following:

Talk about it at Videocracy


I'll leave the Onion comments section to snark on the imprecise title ("Dove Onslaught"? Really?). Seth Stevenson at Slate.com has already ably deconstructed Dove's "on the side of real women" stance here and here, helpfully pointing out that the Unilever family of products ironically Dove alongside Slimfast and (harbinger of gender enlightenment in advertising) AXE.

My mixed feelings about the entire campaign are as follows:

1. Yes, there is a problem with the portrayal of female beauty in the media. But when the company behind a series of effective, award-winning ads drawing attention to that problem is out to sell you something, then their altruism is clearly undermined. Dove/Unilever has managed to simultaneously exploit women's insecurities about their bodies (that's firming cream being sold in the "Real Women Have Curves" ads) and tap into a populist, uncritical "you go, girl!" ethos that mistakes attitude for feminism. Should we really be falling all over ourselves congratulating a multinational corporation for suddenly seeing the harm that the advertising they commission is doing to society?

2. The campaign for real beauty still defines "beauty" as physical. Until Dove develops and markets a brain tonic, I suppose it will remain that way.

3. The in-house charity reeks of the kind of corporate exploitation I cannot stand. Charity is only really charity if you get nothing in return; mounds of good publicity is hardly nothing. One cyncially hopes that the self-esteem material will not have the "Dove" logo splashed on every page in an effort to inculcate brand loyalty. Too cynical? Perhaps. (Turns out I'm half correct: a PDF of the workbook for girls mentions Dove copiously on pg. 2, then again on the last two pages as sponsors. The sample School Program guide places a logo for the "Real Beauty School Program" at the top right corner of every odd-numbered page. It does make one wonder whether a school adminstrator or teacher would actually use non-sanctioned materials in class. Could they?)

And regarding the rather clichéd Onslaught ad specifically:

4. The blatant "oh, will someone think of the children!" fear-mongering that appeals to one base instinct (protect the young!) while reviling another (Me want pretty!)

5. While girls might develop self-esteem and body image issues from the bombardment of unrealistic images of the female body in the media, what about the little boys? What kind of unrealistic view of the opposite sex will they develop as they grow up? And what about men? If the Dove campaign wasn't so focused on selling its products to its target demographic (women), it could make a bold statement by pointing out that unrealistic beauty standards affect the other 50% of the population as well. But no. It's not about Y-chromosomes or even X-chromosomes. It's all about the almighty $.